i saw your debate against someone else on this same topic in which you won but it was unfair because your opponent had no freakin idea what the actual argument was about...basically im saying you had a free lunch and i would love to make you work for it...

since you are the or "pro" i'll allow you to make the first opening statement

Yeah... We're trying to get him to become a better debater. And even though I made that debate just so because he wanted someone he knew to challenge him, I'll accept.

I don't think I need to define any words, so I'll let you do that. However, I'll ask that you provide justification as to why that is the definition we need to be using. If I don't like the justification, I'll provide a counter definition.

Otherwise, I think we all know what words basically mean.

However, I will provide one piece of framework: In order for the individual in question here to exist, it cannot be an illusion of the individual, just as a painting might exist, but the people in a painting don't.

So, I'll make the first argument.

"I think therefore I am," is a statement meant to prove an individual's existence to him or herself. The logic follows that if one thinks, then one must exist. You can't have the ability to think without existing.

This is flawed logic for several reasons. If any one of these flaws flows through the debate, PRO should win.

1.) There is no reason why I can't still be illusory, even if my thoughts are real. Could they not be someone else's thoughts, and I just be an illusion receiving those thoughts? Think of a dream. Certain characters in this dream might have thoughts. They might have the dreamer's thoughts. This does not make them real.

2.) This statement does not actually prove the existence of the thought. Even if I'm perceiving this thought, there is nothing that makes this thought real. If the thought is not real, then how can the person perceiving the thought be real? Think of a dream again. A character can have thoughts, but neither are actually real.

3.) There is nothing that makes it so the perception can't be illusory. If the perception of thought is illusory, then this logic for proving existence automatically falls through.

Good luck. I'll elaborate where I need to after you make your argument.

Then "be" is defined as "to take place : occur" by the same exact source

these definitons are best definitions for
1) contexuality- these definitions are best fit for the context in which
the phrase we are arguing meant
2) predictability- merriam webster is the most predictable source for a
definition in this country
3) reliability- merriam webster is also one of the most reliable sources
for a definiton. the country uses them in every public school in the
nation

Now down to the real business:

i do not agree with your framework but i agree with the example you used and others like that not to be allowed. I kno it sounds confusing but your example is saying something like a picture cant exist but a painting is not an illusion it is just a painting but illusions "be". they "take place and occur" in the mind of one who does exist. they may not be permanent or exist on there own but everything and everybody was created by some higher being. And without your framework you automatically loose because if illusions "are" "was" or "will be" they have then you automatically loose

Next to point out your arguments. Even if the judges were to grant you your framework you are still to loose your argument for the following reasons.

ON your first argument you say that "There is no reason why I can't still be illusory, even if my thoughts are real."

this argument in itself is fundamentally flawed. If you are the product of one who does exist you will not recieve thoughts. you would be an empty vessel a brainless figure that acts as if you have emotions and thoughts but really you would just be acting out of the will of ones mind. There would be no thought and thus they are not real.

Secondly on the same argument you cannot prove that the illusion thinks and all logic and reason is in favor of it not thinking which you would have to prove wrong for your first argument to hold any weight.

On the other hand having thoughts of your own and the ability to create is reserved only for those who exist. THought of your own cannot be given to those who dont exist because they cannot doupt what there creator tells them becuase then they are not dependent which means they are real. thoughts=doupt=real

your second argument "Even if I'm perceiving this thought, there is nothing that makes this thought real."

To be quite frank with you i just dont like this argument. You assume that perciving thought is the same as to "think". Descartes clearly said that "i think therefore i am" not that he percieves thought there fore he is. IF the thought is yours then you are real and that is what you are conceiding to and that is the point descartes was making

and on the same point an illusion cannot recieve thoughts but acts and appears to recieve thoughts so thats another reason your point is invalid. They are puppets controlled by a mind and i think that we can all agree that puppets do not think.

And to your last argument " There is nothing that makes it so the perception can't be illusory" (i like this argument)

the act of percieving something automatically makes something real. I am sorry but i would be using one more definiton

percieve- "to attain awareness or understanding"

same justification but new contexuality arguement.

this definition is most contextual because it fits best into the context of the debate.

Now back to my point something that is not real or does not take place or occur cannot then attain awareness or understanding.One cannnot be truly aware of there surroundings if they do not think which i have proven illusions do not do. to be aware is to occur and be independent which are all the qualities of being a real boy. (pinnochio get it....i know it wasnt that funny i tried to hard)

"i do not agree with your framework but i agree with the example you used and others like that not to be allowed. I kno it sounds confusing but your example is saying something like a picture cant exist but a painting is not an illusion it is just a painting but illusions "be". they "take place and occur" in the mind of one who does exist. they may not be permanent or exist on there own but everything and everybody was created by some higher being. And without your framework you automatically loose because if illusions "are" "was" or "will be" they have then you automatically loose"

You're focusing on the wrong part. In Descartes' statement, we are cocnerned with the "I", not the "am". Of course the painting is, but the thing that the painting depicts isn't. Apply this logic further, of course the illusion is, but I am not. So, in order for you to win, you have to prove that it is me (or the individual) who exists, not an illusion, since the statement "I think therefore I am" focuses on the individual, not a possible illusion of the individual.

I've justified my framework.

"this argument in itself is fundamentally flawed. If you are the product of one who does exist you will not recieve thoughts. you would be an empty vessel a brainless figure that acts as if you have emotions and thoughts but really you would just be acting out of the will of ones mind. There would be no thought and thus they are not real."

Speculation. I could still be illusory and have someone else's thoughts. I refer once again to the dream analogy. A character thinking in a dream does not make that character real.

"Secondly on the same argument you cannot prove that the illusion thinks and all logic and reason is in favor of it not thinking which you would have to prove wrong for your first argument to hold any weight."

There's no logical reason why an illusion can't think. My point is show the flaws in Descartes' line of thought. Since there's no actual reason (at least not one which you have yet provided) why I can't be still be an illusion and perceive certain things, the first contention flows through.

"On the other hand having thoughts of your own and the ability to create is reserved only for those who exist. THought of your own cannot be given to those who dont exist because they cannot doupt what there creator tells them becuase then they are not dependent which means they are real. thoughts=doupt=real"

Tell me why that is reserved for those who exist. And who says they can't tell what their creator tells them. If their creator can give these illusions thoughts, why can't he give them the ability to doubt these thouhts? At this point, I am still not me, just a very complicated illusion of me.

Let's take this idea a bit further. Let's say that somewhere, I exist. However, I have the ability to create an illusion of myself. With the ability to create, I can give whatever characteristics I want to this illusion, including the ability to doubt. This illusion is still not actually real, though. He can have all of my thoughts, and still not be real.

"To be quite frank with you i just dont like this argument. You assume that perciving thought is the same as to "think". Descartes clearly said that "i think therefore i am" not that he percieves thought there fore he is. IF the thought is yours then you are real and that is what you are conceiding to and that is the point descartes was making"

To think is to perceive thought... They're interchangeable.

But you're avoiding the point. You've given no reason why the thought is real. Any rebuttal you gave was to my first contention, not my second, and I've already reuted your attacks there.

"and on the same point an illusion cannot recieve thoughts but acts and appears to recieve thoughts so thats another reason your point is invalid. They are puppets controlled by a mind and i think that we can all agree that puppets do not think."

I addressed this earlier in this round.

"the act of percieving something automatically makes something real. I am sorry but i would be using one more definiton"

That wasn't the argument. The argument is that the perception isn't necessarily real.

"Now back to my point something that is not real or does not take place or occur cannot then attain awareness or understanding.One cannnot be truly aware of there surroundings if they do not think which i have proven illusions do not do. to be aware is to occur and be independent which are all the qualities of being a real boy."

I agree with you. If something can't perceive it can't be real. My point was that Descartes makes the assumption that the perception is real, but there is no justification for this.

Well, I extend all of my arguments. I'm not going to go over the first two points again, because it could get confusing. I'll wait for my opponent's Round 4 rebuttal.

However, I'd like to focus in on my third point: My opponent has given you no reason whyerception of thought has to be real. Since it can be illusory, you can vote PRO just on that. I'm not conceding my other two points, but I feel like this is the strongest point right now. Remember, if I can carry through any one point, I should win.

Well, I extend all of my arguments. It's a bit dissappointing, since he challenged me to this one. But, oh well.

I want you to remember, though, that even in his first rebutal, he did not refute the idea that the prception of thought could be illusory. Since that flows through no matter how you look at the Round, you have to vote PRO.

Someone in a "dream" (I stopped reading after all the forfeits) is in the parameters of that "dream" real.

In the Matrix, what happened there (though not 'real' still affected the real world. What if this 'dream' world has connection to the real world (as dreams do - anyone who has night terrors knows)? Then by extension, the people in the dream are 'real' - just not in a so much corporeal fashion.

This is pointless! To say that something does not exist because it does not think is ridiculous when neither of you can define thinking, or explain how it works.
Thinking is a system of receiving stimuli and encoding and cataloging them, interpreting them alone and in comparison with other catalogued memories of sensory perceptions, finding patterns in those memories, and making cost-benefit decisions based on these patterns.
To imply that thinking has some special status, or maybe occurs in some unidentified extra-corpal entity such as the "Mind" or "Soul" is ludicrous and unfounded.
In the time of Plato and Aristotle, and maybe even up to Descartes, philosophy was intertwined with the highest science of the day. For all he knew then, he was right. But today, we know that thoughts and consciousness are not all that special, and aren't even human-specific. So stop being so silly.